UMC suburban college student lied about background to become prestigious Rhodes Scholar

[Anonymous]

What's UMC? The only thing I can find is United Methodist Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's UMC? The only thing I can find is United Methodist Church.

Upper Middle Class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:from the chronicle of higher ed reporting, anyone who had access to her high school yearbook could be the tipster:

"But after The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article about Fierceton’s scholarship, university officials received an anonymous email raising doubts about her biography. In reality, the email said, Fierceton had grown up in an affluent suburb of St. Louis with her mother, a radiologist, and had attended private schools. A similar email, sent to the Rhodes Trust, accused her of being “blatantly dishonest in the representation of her childhood” and included photos from her high-school yearbook of Fierceton skydiving, riding a horse, and whitewater rafting."

From those facts it seems highly unlikely it was the mother. Why the PP so adamant it was the mother? Is there proof elsewhere?

Read the story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder about the hospital story -- she was so injured she had to stay for 3 weeks, but was able to drive herself to school? And she was "caked" in blood, yet the school didn't do anything until she passed out?

Well she showered before she went to school the incident happened the day before.

My h investigates child abused, very common.

Kids of abuse autopsies show multiple injuries improperly healed because parents never called a doctor.

Even adult autopsies will often show that as a child the person was abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

It is clear as day you know nothing about litigation.

Honey! You can learn all you want from TV but you f’ing know his it actually works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

[Anonymous]

Very interesting story but many in DCUM know nothing about law or lawyers. Of course the lawyer representing her wants the publicity.
We know people who work at the inquirer. Very strange place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

It is clear as day you know nothing about litigation.

Honey! You can learn all you want from TV but you f’ing know his it actually works

Give it up. You are just showing your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

It is clear as day you know nothing about litigation.

Honey! You can learn all you want from TV but you f’ing know his it actually works

Give it up. You are just showing your ignorance.

Straight from trumps play book, She’s others of exactly what you’re doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

We will find out if the case goes to trial. My guess is Fierceton will back down before that point because she won't want the truth exposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

It is clear as day you know nothing about litigation.

Honey! You can learn all you want from TV but you f’ing know his it actually works

Give it up. You are just showing your ignorance.

Straight from trumps play book, She’s others of exactly what you’re doing.

Okay, crazy lady. Whatever you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:from the chronicle of higher ed reporting, anyone who had access to her high school yearbook could be the tipster:

"But after The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article about Fierceton’s scholarship, university officials received an anonymous email raising doubts about her biography. In reality, the email said, Fierceton had grown up in an affluent suburb of St. Louis with her mother, a radiologist, and had attended private schools. A similar email, sent to the Rhodes Trust, accused her of being “blatantly dishonest in the representation of her childhood” and included photos from her high-school yearbook of Fierceton skydiving, riding a horse, and whitewater rafting."

From those facts it seems highly unlikely it was the mother. Why the PP so adamant it was the mother? Is there proof elsewhere?

Read the story

As has been pointed out multiple times to Fierceton's dim DCUM supporters who seem to universally low reading comprehension, the story in the OP does not say anything of the sort. Meanwhile, the court answer from Penn (which received the letter) indicates that it was a former acquaintance of Fierceton that sent the letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:from the chronicle of higher ed reporting, anyone who had access to her high school yearbook could be the tipster:

"But after The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article about Fierceton’s scholarship, university officials received an anonymous email raising doubts about her biography. In reality, the email said, Fierceton had grown up in an affluent suburb of St. Louis with her mother, a radiologist, and had attended private schools. A similar email, sent to the Rhodes Trust, accused her of being “blatantly dishonest in the representation of her childhood” and included photos from her high-school yearbook of Fierceton skydiving, riding a horse, and whitewater rafting."

From those facts it seems highly unlikely it was the mother. Why the PP so adamant it was the mother? Is there proof elsewhere?

Read the story

As has been pointed out multiple times to Fierceton's dim DCUM supporters who seem to universally low reading comprehension, the story in the OP does not say anything of the sort. Meanwhile, the court answer from Penn (which received the letter) indicates that it was a former acquaintance of Fierceton that sent the letter.

the other article linked in this thread says it was the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:from the chronicle of higher ed reporting, anyone who had access to her high school yearbook could be the tipster:

"But after The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article about Fierceton’s scholarship, university officials received an anonymous email raising doubts about her biography. In reality, the email said, Fierceton had grown up in an affluent suburb of St. Louis with her mother, a radiologist, and had attended private schools. A similar email, sent to the Rhodes Trust, accused her of being “blatantly dishonest in the representation of her childhood” and included photos from her high-school yearbook of Fierceton skydiving, riding a horse, and whitewater rafting."

From those facts it seems highly unlikely it was the mother. Why the PP so adamant it was the mother? Is there proof elsewhere?

Read the story

As has been pointed out multiple times to Fierceton's dim DCUM supporters who seem to universally low reading comprehension, the story in the OP does not say anything of the sort. Meanwhile, the court answer from Penn (which received the letter) indicates that it was a former acquaintance of Fierceton that sent the letter.

the other article linked in this thread says it was the mother.

Do you mean the big trial blog post? No, that's not an article or a reputable source. It is a plaintiff lawyer blog that's uninterested in factual accuracy as far as I can tell.

The reputable sources do make it clear it was not the mother.